And the answer is?
We staff with forces. Oh wait thatâs unacceptable too. We delay the pay raise and schedule change until we fill the positions. Wait no one will go for that. Give some people a sack of gold and they will complain about the weight.
The answer is station and battalion level mentorship. But no one wants to hear that because it falls on them to do.
Be a part of the solution or stay out of the conversation. Not directing this at an individual but at the legions of employees with opinions and no action. Over it.
âDonât come to me with problems, come to me with solutionsâ
The BlueBook was released today.
2457 new positions FY 24/25 thru 2029.
Do that math.
Hiring?
Training?
Apprenticeship?
That number doesnât include any LG Hiring needs because of the 66hr work week.
AS @2ndLine1stWord said
BE PART OF THE SOLUTIONS NOT PART OF THE PROBLEMS!
Do you have a pdf of Blue book? Or working link to handbooks? Txs
Used to work. One of the Captains I worked for when I started said he was a seasonal and at the end of the season, they said, âDave, you did a good job this year, weâre going to send to Fire Truck Driverâs School next seasonâ. Seemed to work back then, but diversity.
How exactly does that relate to mentoring? Regardless of who is hired and how they are hired, they are still the employees we are getting. They have to be trained and mentored. That doesnât change.
Also in regards to your diversity theory, thatâs not how things work at all. I know I wonât convince you of that, but I want to make sure anyone reading this knows that has literally nothing to do with the state hiring process for Cal Fire. You come in as a nameless number, you retire as a nameless number.
There was subjective thought by those in supervisory positions as to who was qualified to go to the academy rather than a paper trail of âexperienceâ. You didnât get chosen if you werenât already working and being mentored.
As to your second comment, yeah, thatâs why they have you not check any boxesâŚ
So if you read the hiring manual you can actually hire the candidate that is best suited for the job regardless of whether they are on the top of the list. But that requires people to actually read and know policy and letâs be honest. Itâs much more fun to be mad and make excuses for why we havenât gotten as far as we think we should.
In regard to check boxes, simply because data is collected does not mean that said data is used for hiring. But donât take my word for it, Iâve only sat on a couple committees regarding the hiring process, been involved in hiring, termination, and lay off of employees. Iâm sure that the anecdotal knowledge out there is much more accurate.
I will not reply again because as I said, I will not change your mind. I just donât want you poisoning the well for those that are a part of, might want to become a part of, or a taxpayer that funds our agency.